Re: [v6ops] IPREF as a transitioning tool

["Soni \"They/Them\" L." <[e-mail]>]

On 2023-11-12 07:10, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 03:57:08AM -0800, waldemar wrote:
> > That's correct, but
> > no site would ever employ dual stacks inside their network. That alone is a
> > gain, and indeed that is the way to do away with existing internal dual
> > stacks. 
>
> That would be a great result (sites being able to run ipv6-only today) -
> but we do not need IPERF for that, NAT64/DNS64 (and possibly 464XLAT)
> would enable that just fine.
>
> Why is it not happening?  Because applications still hard-code IPv4 sockets,
> and IPv4 addresses, so require an IPv4 path in the local network (or a
> local CLAT).
>
> When we have these all fixed, we can go ipv6-only in the local network
> and use NAT64/DNS64 to reach those last bastions of IPv4.  Mobile operators
> have demonstrated that this works nicely - 10 years ago already.

On *that* note, it would be nice if we could extend 464XLAT to servers. 
The main issue is how to give the server a global IPv4 for 464XLAT 
purposes, as the way we understand it the host uses its own global IPv6 
for the source address, and the NAT64 prefix for the destination. 
(Granted you could just require static IPv4 address config...) There is 
also something to be said about moving the CLAT into the system's libc, 
as opposed to having it in the kernel or something.

>
>
> So, what extra advantage would this new mechanism which would need to
> be deployed everywhere (your words) bring?
>
> (And why did LISP not succeed?)
>
> Gert Doering
>          -- NetMaster